Miller v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
4 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams (1986), 38 Colo. App. 286 - Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth (1976)
4 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 121 Cal. App. 639 - Wright v. Salzberger · Littlejohn v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Leifer v. Murphy · Hy-Lo Unit & Metal Products Co. v. Ryon · Miller v. Kaiser
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . It is the general rule that as long as the subject property remains in the possession of the fraudulent transferee in toto and is not depreciated by any action of the fraudulent transferee, a personal judgment against such transferee will not be sustained. See Hy-Lo Unit and Metal Products Company v. Ryon, 21 Cal.App.2d 38 , 68 P.2d 393 . See also 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances § 444 and cases cited thereunder. "However, under special circumstances it has nevertheless been held to be in equity's power to hold a fraudulent transferee personally liable. Such special circumstances generally involve some activity of the fraudulent transferee in causing the property involved to be depreciated in value which in his hands or causing the property, either wholly or in part, to be placed beyond the reach of the court. Equity in such events will not allow itself to be outwitted or frustrated. It had the power to and will go to the extent necessary to achieve equitable results. If a money judgment against the fraudulent transferee will accomplish the desired results, it will be imposed in favor of the judgment creditor. Such a judgment, however, by its very nature will be limited in amount to the loss in value of the subject property or if the property involved has been completely disposed of and beyond the reach of the court, the judgment will be limited to the full value of the property which would have otherwise been subject to the creditor's claim. Also, since such a persona”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'It becomes axiomatic therefore after analyzing this equitable remedy that a judgment creditor cannot in a fraudulent conveyance action be the recipient, as against the fraudulent transferor, of a money judgment, for the very basis of this action is the judgment debt he is endeavoring to collect. A different situation might be presented in an action in which special damages were alleged and proved. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Berger v. Varum
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.